OUR VIEWPOINT
- Reasonable
proposals to the Convention on Climate
Change
Everyone
now seems to agree that the Earth’s climate is changing as a direct
result of human activities and that the social, environmental,
political and economic consequences will be catastrophic if nothing
is done – and fast – to address the problem.
The
12th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention
on Climate Change will be meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, from 6 to
17 November. Unfortunately, this Convention has until now shown
that human greed has prevailed over human intelligence, and has
been dominated by interests that care too little about the environment
and people and too much about money.
It
is therefore necessary to think in terms of what really needs
to be done to avoid the looming climatic crisis and not about
how much money there is to win or lose in different scenarios.
It
is a well known fact that the main causes of climate change are
related to fossil fuel consumption (coal, oil and gas) and to
a lesser extent to deforestation, and that both result in the
carbon emissions mainly responsible for global warming.
Those
two causes are, however, totally different. The carbon stored
in fossil fuels is not part of the biospheric carbon cycle. Once
extracted and burnt, that carbon adds to the above-ground carbon
pool and will not return back to its original underground form
of oil, coal or gas for eons. Fossil fuel use is therefore, practically
speaking, an irreversible cause of climate change.
This
is why fossil fuel use should by now be considered an extreme
environmental provocation which cannot be “compensated for” in
any way. If governments had taken this approach when the Kyoto
Protocol was agreed upon in 1997, we could now be moving toward
a fossil fuel-free world, with a much brighter climatic future.
Carbon
emissions resulting from deforestation are different, because
the carbon stored in forest biomass is – and has always been –
part of the above ground carbon pool. This means that if deforestation
is reversed through forest restoration –which is not synonymous
to monoculture tree plantations – the growing forests are likely
to “suck up” some of the carbon released when the forest was destroyed
or degraded.
In
view of the above, if governments are serious about tackling climate
change, they must commit themselves to:
-
phasing out fossil fuels in a very short time
-
halting and reversing deforestation in a very short time
However,
not all countries are equally responsible for climate change.
The industrialized North holds most of the responsibility for
the problem, and is obliged to implement solutions to the problem
it created. As most experts agree, it also has the financial and
technical resources to make the phase out of fossil fuels possible.
The
North’s responsibility is very clear in the case of fossil fuel-related
carbon emissions, most of which they have released into the atmosphere
since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But it is equally
clear that most of the deforestation that is taking place in the
South is also related to the North. Production of soya beans,
meat, shrimp, palm oil, timber, pulp and paper, minerals – all
of which result in forest loss – end up mostly in Northern markets,
while Northern-led institutions such as the IMF and the World
Bank impose policies on the South that necessarily result in further
deforestation.
It
is therefore necessary that Northern governments commit themselves
to:
-
making available any financial and technical resources required
to phase out fossil fuels in a very short time – in both North
and South
-
introducing relevant changes to their economies and policies to
make it possible to stop and reverse deforestation in a very short
time
-
ensuring that Southern countries and peoples benefit from and
are in no way negatively impacted by those changes. Among other
things, this means that no large-scale tree or biofuel monocultures
are implemented on their lands
Accordingly,
the Convention needs to move away from the complicated and fraudulent
carbon trading schemes it has been involved in during the past
nine years. As a sign of change, it should cease to consider the
use of tree plantations as carbon sinks and immediately exclude
the possibility of using genetically modified trees in such plantations.
At the same time, it should begin to address seriously the issues
of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation.
All
this is nothing more than common sense – even though it is a far
cry from the false solutions government climate negotiators will
probably spend most of their time discussing when they meet in
Nairobi.
Of
course, many vested interests oppose common sense. But the main
vested interest that should be taken into account is humanity
as a whole, whose future depends on what is done – or not – by
the governments involved in this process.
index
COMMUNITIES
AND FORESTS
-
The Amazon: IIRSA thinks big, seeking business
Infrastructure
development in the name of regional economic integration poses
one of the greatest challenges to environmental sustainability
and social justice today. The initiative for Integration of Regional
Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) is a striking example
of this new trend. IIRSA proposes a series of large-scale, high-risk
and debt-heavy mega-projects that would result in extensive alterations
to landscapes and livelihoods in the region. In this development
framework, mountains, forests, and wetlands are seen as barriers
to economic development and rivers become the means for extracting
natural resources.
The
IIRSA initiative is coordinated by all 12 South American governments,
with the technical and financial support of multilateral and national
banks. It consists of 10 hubs of economic integration cutting
across the continent and requiring major investment in transport,
energy and telecommunications; and at least 7 sectoral integration
processes designed to harmonize regulatory frameworks amongst
the countries.
So
far IIRSA has identified over 40 composite mega-projects for funding
together with hundreds of smaller infrastructure improvement projects,
with an aggregate cost in the tens of billions of US dollars.
Given its magnitude and the scale of its potential impacts, many
environmental organizations are referring to IIRSA as a “gigaproject.”
IIRSA
is in fact a forum for innumerable conflicts and controversies
that bear little relationship to alleged benefits for the poor.
This is nothing new considering the political and economic interests
involved and the amount of financial resources circulating.
In addition to the governments of the 12 South American governments,
other old and new actors from the financial area are involved,
such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Andean
Development Corporation (ADC), the Financial Fund for the Development
of the River Plate Basin (Fonplata), the National Bank for Economic
and Social Development (BNDES), the World Bank (IBRD), and major
corporations.
The
combination of investment in highway construction, widespread
dredging, and dams proposed under IIRSA, with significant investment
from the private sector in resource extraction and agro-industry
(for example soy-bean) will not only have direct effects on biodiversity,
but also indirect effects on peasant and farm workers.
Historically,
this has led to the displacement of rural and indigenous peoples,
massive migration and deforestation. All of these developments
potentially undermine the viability of the region’s small-farm
sector, established national parks, indigenous territories, and
biodiversity reserves. Many of the projects proposed by IIRSA
are in fact old national infrastructure projects that are being
integrated into the regional framework in the hopes of reviving
them. The environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts
of these projects on areas such as the Andes, the Amazon Basin,
Mato Grosso, Pantanal and the Paraguay and Parana Rivers will
be significant and, in many cases, irreversible.
The
Amazon is being incorporated by force in the integration strategy
sponsored by IIRSA. Parts of the Amazon territory of interest
to big capital are the target of investment seeking to insert
them in the capitalist globalization dynamics, with its rationale
of inequality and exclusion. The Amazon hub covers almost 1,000
miles of the Amazon Basin, from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast.
It includes part of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru as well
as the Amazon River and most of its main tributaries. This
is an area covering 4,500 million square kilometres and involving
approximately 52 million inhabitants. It contains almost half
of the world’s total biological diversity and between 15 and 20
percent of its fresh water supply.
Presently
the Amazon hub contains 54 IIRSA projects, divided into 7 project
clusters, most of them organized around the watersheds of tributaries
to the Amazon River. The Brazilian Amazon is part of three hubs
foreseen by IIRSA: the Amazon hub (Amazonas, Para and Amapa) the
Guyanes Shield (Roraima and Amapa) and the Peru-Brazil-Bolivia
hub (Acre, Rondônia, Amazonas and Mato Grosso). In the Brazilian
Amazon the IIRSA list includes the construction of hydroelectric
plants, lines of transmission between hydroelectric plants, construction
and rehabilitation of highways, construction of ports, a pulp-mill,
soy bean and instant coffee processing plants, a meat packing
plant and transport works along over 6,000 km of navigable waterways
as a way of increasing the movement of products and exit of natural
resources.
The
construction of new hydroelectric plants in the Amazon will have
the function of generating energy to be used mainly by the most
dynamic economic centres, enabling the expansion of waterways
as well as of activities producing highly commercial export-oriented
crops (for example soy beans) and supplying industrial plants
that need large amounts of energy.
A
characteristic element of IIRSA is that it is usually totally
unknown, not only to local community leaders but also to the business
community, leaders of federal bodies, members of the Judicial
Power and parliamentarians, among others. The decisions
on this new land planning and on infrastructure projects aimed
at the region are not discussed with local state and municipal
governments, and still less with social movements, non-governmental
organizations, or Amazon educational and research institutions
among others.
The
struggle for access and control of the Amazon’s natural resources
is becoming increasingly acrimonious. Today this type of conflict
is widespread in the region. A classical vision of the expansion
of the southern frontier towards the north and of the eastern
frontier to the west is not enough to explain the nature and dynamics
of conflicts in the Northern Brazil, as the present trend is that
of conflicts disseminated all over the Amazon territory, covering
areas that are not necessarily contiguous and involving people
and institutions from different countries.
However,
the creation and consolidation of networks and fora of social
movements, pastoral groups, non-governmental organizations and
the academic community are increasing in a necessary and comprehensive
response to a threat that is global in nature.
Article
based on information from: “Amazon Hub”, Building Informed Civic
Engagement for Conservation in the Andes-Amazon (BICECA),
http://www.biceca.org/en/Index.aspx; “Incorporação compulsória
de territórios”, e “IIRSA: os riscos da integração”, Guilherme
Carvalho, Máster en Planificación del Desarrollo (NAEA/UFPA)
y técnico de FASE Amazônia – Núcleo Cidadania, published in Orçamento
y Política Socioambiental, Nº 17, September 2006, Instituto
de Estudos Socioeconômicos – INESC,
http://www.inesc.org.br/pt/publicacoes/boletins/boletim.php?
oid=XGyKPM5ozIOetvHwajV6FgCFnwST07xN
index
-
Bolivia: Brazilian dam project threatens
the lives of Amazon communities
On
11 September 2006 the Brazilian Institute for the Environment
and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) (the Brazilian environmental
authority) approved the Environmental Impact Assessment on the
construction of two dams in Brazilian territory on the Madera
River, the largest tributary to the Amazon River.
This
issue had cause concern amongst Bolivian and Brazilian scientists
because, according to the data from the study itself, the dams
will slow down the speed of the river flow, causing changes in
the river itself and deteriorating the water quality, in addition
to the impacts on smaller rivers flowing into the Madera river,
an aspect not considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment.
The flood area will reach as far as Bolivia and with time, the
river bed will rise, with further negative effects on the flood
problem.
Additionally,
the expected changes will affect the living conditions of the
inhabitants of the Bolivian Amazon, who obtain most of their food
and sustenance from the rivers and the forest. Representatives
of organizations and institutions from the northern Amazon region
have stated with alarm that “these changes are going to frighten
off the fish and bring them disease and death and the same will
happen with the birds and other river animals and forest animals.
The gathering of Brazil nuts and timber-yielding species will
be seriously affected.”
The
tropical forest remaining in the hands of Bolivia is still in
a good state of preservation. Apart from agriculture, hunting
and fishing, the population basically subsists on extractive activities
such as gathering Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa), of which
Bolivia is the greatest exporter in the world. Brazil nut
economy requires unaltered forests. Unlike Bolivia, in the Brazilian
zone of the Amazon the environment has been greatly destroyed
with forests replaced by grazing lands for cattle and displacement,
very often under duress, of communities further increasing the
ranks of the shanty-towns in the Brazilian mega-cities. For them
development has signified becoming city poor and in many cases
for the indigenous peoples of the region, it has signified their
physical extermination.
The
inhabitants of the rural area of the Amazon region grow crops
in the wetlands left by the rivers following the rainy season.
The projected dams will flood these areas permanently, thus eliminating
the agricultural base for many communities. Furthermore, this
permanent flooding will contaminate their drinking water, bringing
with it greater problems of malaria, dengue, leishmaniasis (an
infectious parasitic skin disease), diarrhoea in children and
possibly other diseases as was the case in Brazil with the construction
of other dams.
The
construction of hydroelectric plants is usually accompanied by
the promise of cheap energy but, as in other cases, the astronomical
cost of the dam and its installations may well convert the myth
of cheap energy from the rivers into a sad reality of high costs
and greater foreign indebtedness for the countries involved.
The
two dams and their transmission line will in fact be part of a
larger project including two other dams, one in waters shared
between Brazil and Bolivia and the other in the latter country
in addition to a 4000 km long waterway that will oblige major
changes to be made in the region’s river system to convert them
into canals.
Considering
the serious threat facing the Amazon region, representatives of
organizations and institutions from the northern Amazon region
– municipal councillors, the university community, representatives
of fisherfolk associations, indigenous peoples’ associations,
rural school teachers, CARITAS, IPHAE, Foro Regional Norte Amazónico,
FOBOMADE, among others - gathered in the City of Riberalta, Bolivia,
on 12 October 2006, resolved:
“To
request the National Government to intervene immediately before
the Government of Brazil and international organizations, such
as the United Nations, in defence of our territory, our rivers,
our flora and fauna, the environment and our way of life. We also
request that our right to timely information on the formalities
and results of these formalities be recognized and taken into
account.
To
warn the Brazilian government that we will defend our territory
at all international proceedings and show the world how major
works are planned, regardless of the populations inhabiting the
Amazon and regardless of the environment.
To
convene our Brazilian brothers and sisters who are concerned and
likely to be affected by the works, to join us in a world protest
together with all the peoples and nations of the world, in defence
of our Amazon territory.”
Article
based on information from: “Pronunciamiento de la región amazónica
de Bolivia en torno a las represas proyectadas sobre el Río Madera”,
12 October 2006, sent by Foro Boliviano sobre Medio Ambiente y
Desarrollo (FOBOMADE), e-mail:
comunicación@fobomade.org.bo, http://www.fobomade.org.bo;
“Destrucción de la Amazonía: Brasil aprueba EIA de represas que
inundarán territorio boliviano”, Pablo Villegas, FOBOMADE,
http://www.fobomade.org.bo/foro/doc/brasil_madera_bolivia.pdf
index
-
Laos: What did Smartwood know when it issued
the certificate?
Last
month I wrote an article about FSC certification of “village forestry”
in Laos. The article was based on a leaked report from a World
Bank and Finnish government project, the Sustainable Forestry
and Rural Development Project (SUFORD). The SUFORD report documented
serious problems with logging under the project, of which 39,000
hectares has been certified by SmartWood under the Forest Stewardship
Council system.
Villagers’
forests and livelihoods have been seriously damaged by the logging
in their forests. According to the SUFORD report, logging crews
have cut villagers’ resin trees and are taking out more timber
than is in the management plans. The level of logging is driven
not by villagers’ management plans but by demand from local sawmills
and logging quotas set at provincial level.
The
SUFORD report found that timber leaving villager’s FSC-certified
forests (and other areas of forest in Savannahkhet province) was
not correctly marked. “Tracing and chain of custody of trees/logs
is therefore impossible,” the author of the report commented.
The logging is in breach of FSC standards and Lao forestry law,
which, as the SUFORD report points out, states that logs that
are not appropriately marked cannot be moved. This applies whether
or not the logs are FSC-labelled.
I
wrote the article last month to make public the findings of the
SUFORD report and to generate a discussion about the certification.
According to Scott Poynton, Executive Director of the Tropical
Forest Trust, neither he nor SmartWood were aware of the SUFORD
report before reading my article. My article also generated a
fair bit of discussion.*
In
this article, I’d like to look at a question that I overlooked
both in my previous article and in the discussion that followed:
How much did SmartWood know about whether the logging operations
complied with FSC standards when it issued the certificate? Clearly
this question is critical to any certificate, regardless of whether
the operation certified involves industrial logging, industrial
tree plantations or small-scale community forestry operations.
SmartWood
issued the certificate in January 2006. Four months later, SUFORD
found that the logging was in serious breach of several of FSC’s
principles and criteria. My first assumption was that SmartWood
had issued a certificate in the knowledge that the certified operation
did not comply with FSC standards.
As
Scott Poynton points out, it’s not as simple as this short timeframe
implies. “The truth needs a little deeper search through the project’s
history,” he says. He suggests that we need to look back to June
2005 when SmartWood decided that all the pre-conditions had been
met. There was then a six month delay in issuing the certificate,
“due to the need to accurately translate the contract document;
the need for both parties to understand each other; and because
of personnel changes in Savannahkhet”, according to Poynton.
Poynton
explains that “there was ample time between June 2005 and May
2006 for systems to break down.” In other words, using Poynton’s
argument, at the time that SmartWood issued the certificate it
is perfectly possible that the operations did not comply with
FSC standards.
SmartWood
denies any such possibility: “At the time the FSC certificate
was issued RA/SW [Rainforest Alliance/SmartWood] was confident
that the communities were in compliance with the FSC standards.”
I
suggest that we need to look even further back in time than Poynton
suggests. SmartWood’s Public Summary of the assessment includes
a record of the Certification Assessment Process. According to
this record, SmartWood’s assessors visited the forests they certified
in Savannahkhet only once, in May 2003, almost three years before
the certificate was issued.
In
May 2003, SmartWood’s team spent three days in Savannahkhet province
assessing the 39,000 hectares of “village forestry” operations.
They inspected two secondary log landings, one area which was
logged in 1999 and one area of active logging. They also took
part in several meetings. A year later SmartWood returned to Savannahkhet
but did not visit any forest operations. In July 2005, SmartWood
carried out a desk review and determined that all the pre-conditions
had been met and that the certificate could be issued.
As
a result of SUFORD’s report and my article based on the report,
SmartWood will conduct a field audit in October 2006. It’s about
time. SmartWood's assessors will hopefully be able to determine
whether the village forestry operations comply with FSC standards.
However, it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to determine
when, for example, the system of marking the timber broke down.
This could have been at any time between May 2003 and May 2006.
Ten
days ago, in a discussion with Scott Poynton I wrote that “SmartWood
certified an operation knowing that it does not comply with either
FSC principles and criteria or the Lao Forestry Law.” I now realise
that SmartWood certified an operation without knowing whether
or not it complied with either FSC principles and criteria or
the Lao Forestry Law. I’m not sure which is worse, but neither
option inspires much confidence in SmartWood or in the FSC system.
*The
discussion can be followed here: www.pulpinc.wordpress.com/tag/fsc
By
Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org,
www.chrislang.blogspot.com
index
-
Liberia: New Forestry Law raises hopes
and doubts
Similar
to what has happened in several Southern countries harassed by
centuries of colonialism, the wealth of Liberia has also been
its curse. Tropical forests account for 47 per cent of Liberia’s
land. Between 1989 and 2003, revenue from forests was used to
fund a brutal conflict fuelled by the pillaging of forests. Timber
was a key resource for Liberia's armed factions. Wood flowed out;
money and arms flowed in. So many concessions had been corruptly
awarded that they totalled more than the land area of Liberia.
In
July 2003, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Liberian
timber exports. The blocking of timber exports brought an end
to logging, and to former president Charles Taylor, who fled the
country and now awaits trial in The Hague on war crimes charges.
Guus van Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and member of Taylor's
inner circle who ran the notoriously rapacious Oriental Timber
Company (OTC), is already in jail for breaking the UN arms embargo.
Following
those years of destructive civil war, illegal lumber trafficking
and massive fraud to fuel conflict, Liberia passed a forestry
law on October 9, 2006, in line with new policies drawn up with
the United Nations. The new legislation will allow implementation
of Liberia’s first-ever forestry policy, which FAO helped develop
with numerous international partners (the United States, the European
Union, the World Bank, IUCN, and Conservation NGOs including Conservation
International, Flora and Fauna International, a number of Liberian
NGOs and industry) through the Liberia Forest Initiative.
According
to Silas Siakor, the 2006 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner for
Africa, the new law, which has led to the lifting of UN sanctions,
is promising –if it can be enforced.
The
law sets aside 30 percent of the forests as reserves, and guarantees
that local communities will have to approve all timber concessions
and will receive 30 percent of the revenues. But there's a smart
twist -- those revenues will come from property taxes, not extraction
fees, so the incentive is for the local communities to make sure
there is no overlogging to ensure that the land isn't devalued
and that the payments continue indefinitely -- a model considerably
better than how the U.S. treats its own national forests!
There
will be also forests available for commercial concessions. The
law stipulates that people with a history of involvement in war,
corruption and malpractice are barred from that option. However,
many of the businessmen who gleefully raped Liberia's forests
in return for favours are still there, looking after their other
interests and keeping an eye on logging opportunities.
And
not only nationals. At an International Tropical Forest Investment
Forum held in Cancun, Mexico, on April 26, 2006, US Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary For Environment Daniel A Reifsnyder, enthusiastically
announced: “We are putting our support and action behind Liberia”.
He remarked that “This Forest Investment Conference will focus
on many aspects of attracting investment to the natural tropical
forest.” There is the trade interest behind glamorous sentences
like “progressive forest management” and “conservation policies
aimed at truly making the utilization of forest resources more
sustainable”. The US officer said that “investors can both earn
a profit and maintain forest resources for future generations.”
Is there any example of the Big capital doing that, please?
Article
based on information from: “Liberia enacts new forest policy
with UN help to ensure benefits for all”, UN News Service,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20146&Cr=liberia&Cr1=;
New dawn for Liberia's 'blood forests', Richard Black, Environment
correspondent, BBC News, e-mail: Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/6035617.stm; “Issues
and Opportunities for Investment in Natural Tropical Forests”,
Daniel A Reifsnyder, Remarks to International Tropical Forest
Investment Forum, Mexico, April 26, 2006,
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2006/65800.htm
index
COMMUNITIES
AND TREE MONOCULTURES
-
Australia: AFS certification scheme denounced
by NGOs
In
our previous issue (WRM Bulletin Nº 110), we published a section
on “plantation certification at its worse”, including the case
of the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC), a programme
for the endorsement of national certification schemes.
The
Australian Forestry Standard (AFS), developed by the Australian
logging industry and the Australian Government and Government
agencies, is the Australian member of the PEFC Council. It is
also a main element of the Australian Forest Certification Scheme
(AFCS), started in 2000 to provide an “Australian forest certification
scheme”.
Similar
to other certification schemes, the AFS contributes to the expansion
of large scale tree monocultures as long as it allows the conversion
of forests to plantations. As an added negative attribute, it
has also been heavily criticized by local environmental NGOs.
In 2002, National Australian
environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) had expressed
in a letter their complete rejection of the Australian Forestry
Standard (AFS).
The
NGOs had explained that as a result of the continued failure of
the process to address any of their concerns, they had withdrew
from the Standard’s development process at the beginning of that
year because they had found that “there was no involvement of
environmental interests in the development of either the Standard’s
terms of reference, or the Steering Committee. The terms of reference
were developed by the Australian Federal Government and the logging
industry with no consultation of ENGOs or other stakeholders”.
Also, they referred that the “repeated attempts by ENGOs to address
these inequities were rejected by those driving the Standard’s
development process”.
Standards
Australia - self-described as the peak, non-government standards
body in Australia which ensures the effective development of standards
– had received ENGOs objections, but made no attempt to address
their environmental concerns, particularly logging of old growth
forests, conversion of native forests and native vegetation to
plantations, clearfelling, and inappropriate use of chemicals.
All
ENGO’s withdrew from the process in 2002 due to concerns over
the lack of meaningful participation, and the contents of the
draft standard. Since from then on the AFS has been developed
and finalized without the involvement, support or endorsement
of the environmental NGO sector, the ENGOs were deeply concerned
that the Australian Government and the logging industry would
seek either to gain mutual accreditation with other certification
schemes or to misleadingly pass off this Standard as being independent
and having the support of environmental stakeholders.
In
an open letter issued in October 2005, Australian national ENGOs
denounced that “despite the lack of a formal accredited Standard
and the lack of ENGO participation, one accredited organization
appears to imply in its materials that it is accredited under
an AFS “Standard”, whilst materials on the AFS Ltd’s website appear
to imply the ongoing participation of ENGOs.” They stated that
“ENGOs do not – and did not – endorse any of the standards setting
processes as the current and previous interim draft standards
permit wood arising from clearing of native forests (including
old growth and threatened species habitat) for conversion to single
species plantations to be certified, as well as the poisoning
of native wildlife, and continues to exclude ENGOs from meaningful
participation in any of the standards setting processes.”
Being
neither independent, nor third party, AFS’ poor performance adds
to its responsibility as a promoter of the “green deserts”, with
their heavy toll on the environment and the communities.
Article based on information from: “Open
letter to European Union Environment and Trade Ministers, timber
retailers, consumers and other interested parties”, June 2003;
“Open letter from Australian national ENGO’s campaigning for forest
protection and sustainable forest management”, October 2005, sent
by Jutta Kill, FERN, e-mail:
jutta@fern.org
index
-
India: Different plantation species, same
problems
I
recently had the opportunity of travelling to the Indian province
of West Bengal and to visit the Dhoteria, Bagora and Mayung “Forest
Villages” in the districts of Darjeeling, Kurseong and Kalimpong.
To
the outsider, the mountain area of the Outer Himalayas appears
to be covered by dense forests, mostly composed of very large
trees. However, local people know that these are not forests,
but old and new plantations of mostly two species: the Japanese
cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and Teak (Tectona grandis).
Those
plantations where initiated during British colonial rule in India
under the so-called “Taungya system”, first implemented by the
British in Burma and later extended to other colonies. The apparently
“technical” name of this system served to hide its huge social
and environmental impacts. People were moved –through “voluntary”
or forced mechanisms- to the areas to be planted and were settled
in so-called Forest Villages. Their first task would be to cut
down the native forest and to set fire to the non commercially
valuable vegetation. The second task would be to plant the selected
species, -initially teak and later Cryptomeria. After that, the
foresters would “allow” villagers to sow their own crops between
the rows of planted trees, which in fact resulted in free weeding
of the plantation. Once the canopy closed and crops would no longer
be able to grow for lack of sunshine, the Forest Village would
simply be moved to a new area where exactly the same process would
begin again.
The
independence of India did not bring about changes in Forestry
Department thinking and action, which mostly continued the colonial
policy of domination over nature and people. Ample evidence of
this was provided by local people interviewed during the trip
to the region.
In
Dhotera Forest Village a man said that he had spent almost his
entire life in the area. He said that “the Corporation cut the
forest and planted. They used to be mixed plantations of hardwood
species, but then they discovered that Cryptomeria grew faster
and only this species was planted.” He added that “in the past
villagers benefited more from both forests and plantations. They
could find and sell fruits and other things. Forest fruits are
very nutritious. However, the Forestry Department destroyed the
forest in 1974, so people copied the government and destroyed
forest too arguing that ‘if you can cut, then we can cut too’.
Now things are even worse because this has been defined as a ‘wildlife
area’, so we have no rights and they are trying to evict us as
intruders.”
Another
person said that in his area there were originally many species
of trees and animals such as deer, bear and tiger. He said that
“then they planted teak and now you don’t see even cattle. The
roots of these trees can’t hold the soil or stand against wind,
so they cannot give the protection provided by forests.”
A
young man mentioned that many plantations are a fraud, because
the Forestry Department “receives the money, plants trees only
along visible borders and the unspent money goes into the foresters’
pockets.”
An
old lady said that she had arrived here 50 years ago and had seen
the forest disappear. She explained that “at that time the forest
was very diverse and provided plenty of things: mushrooms, fruit,
vegetables, different things to eat. Now only the stumps of those
trees exist.”
Similar
evidence was provided by villagers from Bagora Forest Village.
One man explained that “the forest was full of medicinal plants,
but now we have to use government medicine because we can’t find
those plants anymore. Wild animals are now eating our crops because
of food scarcity in plantations. The water has become foul and
can’t be drunk from springs. The same springs that used to be
pure now bring diseases.” He remembered that when they were paid
to cut the forest they did it on bare feet, adding that “now we
have boots, but there’s nothing in the forest. Cryptomerias give
us nothing but problems. Now we even have to prove that we have
lived in this area to avoid eviction.”
Another
villager described what he said was the oldest teak plantation
in India (planted in 1864). He said that the soil used to be much
more fertile, with plenty of forest humus, but that “after they
cleared the forest the humus disappeared.” He emphasized that
“there’s no need to have these plantations anymore. They are not
good for people or animals. Teak has made people poor. We can’t
take cattle to the plantation. The plantation affects wildlife
so it makes people poorer. There is no undergrowth and therefore
no food or medicinal plants.”
A
young man said that “a village was wiped out by a landslide.”
According to villagers, teak trees not only do not hold the soil,
but they enhance erosion due to the size of the water drops that
are formed on the surface of their large leaves. Those bigger
than normal water drops then hit on the soil from the trees’ high
crowns -with no undergrowth to protect it- thus resulting in erosion
and landslides from the hillsides.
Another
person said that the people from this village had been brought
here by the British in the 1940s. When the British left, the independent
Indian government took over, but “has done nothing to help us.
The land got fragmented and now we don’t have sufficient land
and we can’t get it from the government. Now there is a road and
a school, but our main source of livelihood has been taken away
from us. The Forestry Department has mapped the area, but is only
mapping a small portion of forest villages. The rest is defined
as encroachment.”
An
old person added that “in 1942-43 the area was heavily forested.”
The Forestry Department brought them here and gave them land,
timber for building, separate land for households and for grazing.
“We carried out all types of work: clearfelling, charcoal production,
tree planting.” The power of Forestry Department officials was
such, that “if they came, we had to give them free milk, chicken
and eggs.” Such power of forestry officials is still present,
though in a different manner: “We are not allowed to take anything
out from the cryptomeria plantations, because anything we do there
is considered illegal.”
The
issue of employment is deeply felt by the villagers. One of them
stressed that “there is no employment, because the forest is strictly
conserved and plantations provide us with nothing. There is nothing
to eat, no land for grazing and no firewood; not even dry sticks.”
According to villagers, the Forestry Department has increased
harassment here in what they defined as an “outright violation
of human rights.”
Similar
evidence was provided by the inhabitants of Mayung Forest Village,
who also mentioned the occurrence of “plenty of landslides in
plantations.” Regarding employment, they said that plantations
provide almost no jobs. At the best, they can work some 15 days
... a year! As a result, people are migrating.
However,
they also showed us a change that has taken place in one part
of their area: a mixed plantation established in 1998. This plantation
was the result of a meeting held between villagers and the local
Forestry Department Officer, where the latter committed to no
more monocultures.
In
spite of the fact that this is perceived as a positive step, the
election of the species for the mixed plantation was done by the
Forestry Department with no consultation with villagers, who would
have elected more beneficial species. In this plantation there
is now some undergrowth for fodder, fruit and medicinal plants,
mushrooms. There is now also more wildlife such as deer, wild
boar, pheasants. They are happy with this, which compares favourably
with monoculture teak and cryptomeria plantations (“which are
terrible”) but “it could have been much better if we had been
consulted.” They are now intercropping (cardamon, broom-grass).
In
sum, the evidence provided by local people in the areas visited
again proves that monoculture tree plantations –regardless of
the chosen tree species- are socially harmful and environmentally
destructive and should never substitute forests. It is now necessary
to begin the process of bringing back the forest both through
management of existing plantations and through planting with a
mix of local species. But it is also necessary to learn from the
Mayung Forest Village experience and to involve local populations
in the selection of the plantation species to ensure that the
future forests will be socially and environmentally beneficial.
By
Ricardo Carrere, e-mail: rcarrere@wrm.org.uy.
Information gathered during a field trip organized by the National
Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers (North Bengal Regional
Committee) and NESPON.
index
-
Indonesia: Trouble at the mill. UFS to
open new wood chip mill
Later
this year, United Fiber Systems plans to open a new 700,000 tonnes
a year wood chip mill at Alle-Alle on the island of Pulau Laut.
The mill is the first step of UFS’ proposed pulp developments
for Kalimantan. The wood chips will be exported to feed pulp and
paper mills in China.
For
more than a year, UFS has been involved in negotiations to take
over the 525,000 tonnes a year Kiani Kertas pulp mill in East
Kalimantan. In July 2005, UFS signed a deal to manage operations
at the heavily indebted pulp mill. “Our takeover bid for Kiani
Kertas is still under discussion with the owners,” UFS director,
Wong Vun Khi, told WRM. UFS also plans to build a 600,000 tonnes
a year pulp mill at Satui in South Kalimantan. “The development
work for the Satui pulp mill project is in principle ready, but
the start-up date for the construction of the mill has not yet
been decided upon,” said Wong.
A
new report, “No Chip Mill Without Wood”, written by Betty Tio
Minar and published by Down to Earth, documents the problems related
to UFS’ wood chip mill and proposed pulp plans in Kalimantan.
Betty Tio Minar and Deddy Ratih from Walhi South Kalimantan recently
visited Europe to discuss the proposed projects with NGOs, members
of the public and potential financiers of UFS in Germany, Austria
and the Netherlands.
At
a meeting in Berlin organised by Watch Indonesia!, Minar explained
that local NGOs have been unable to obtain copies of the EIA for
UFS’ wood chip mill. UFS needs permission from the Ministry of
Forestry to build the mill and from the Ministry of Transportation
to build a port linked to the mill. UFS has received none of these
permits. “The Governor of South Kalimantan has not yet given his
recommendation for the project,” said Minar.
She
added that local fisher folk have already seen the impacts of
the wood chip mill, as coral reefs around the island have been
used to construct the port.
Deddy
Ratih explained that UFS paid less than the market rate for the
land for the wood chip mill. Of the 320 jobs in the mill, only
30 are going to people from the island of Pulau Laut and only
six from the village of Alle-Alle. “People who sold their land
for the wood chip mill expected jobs,” Ratih said. “Now they have
no land and no jobs.”
UFS
claims that it will only use timber from plantations to feed its
operations. I asked UFS for copies of independent studies of where
the wood will come from. “All forestry studies prepared by independent
consultants engaged by UFS are confidential documents,” company
director Wong Vun Khi replied. Down to Earth comments that “UFS’
inability to provide data on the potential source of timber supplies
indicates the likelihood that natural forests in South Kalimantan
and further afield will be destroyed - legally or illegally to
meet their needs.”
Down
to Earth has calculated the area of plantations that would be
needed to feed each of UFS’ proposed pulp operations. The wood
chip mill will require an area of 85,895 hectares. The existing
Kiani Kertas mill needs about 170,000 hectares of plantations
to run at capacity. UFS’ proposed Satui pulp mill would require
almost 200,000 hectares of plantations.
State-owned
plantation company Inhutani II has a 50,000 hectare acacia plantation
on Pulau Laut, which could potentially supply part of the chip
mill’s wood. But in May 2006, Inhutani II joined the Global Forest
and Trade Network, WWF’s scheme to promote “eco-friendly” timber
to international buyers. The World Bank’s International Finance
Corporation has been working with Inhutani II for almost three
years, providing technical assistance and advice.
WWF’s
Darius Sarshar explained that at present about 20 per cent of
Inhutani II’s production is of saw log quality. This is likely
to increase. “Pulp log prices will not ever reach those of sawlogs,
if they did, any pulp mill would likely quickly go bust,” he said.
“It is therefore in Inhutani II’s commercial interest to maximise
its production of sawlogs, and we believe that they will continue
to do so.”
Through
a subsidiary, PT Hutan Rindang Buana (PT HRB), UFS has a plantation
concession covering about 250,000 hectares. UFS director Wong
Vun Khi told WRM that PT HRB has planted 75,000 hectares. But
forestry consultant Jaakko Pöyry estimates that only about 60,000
hectares is planted. Down to Earth quotes a local NGO as saying
that only 15,000 hectares is in good enough condition to supply
raw material.
“It’s
a bit like the magician’s trick with three cups and a coin,” said
Down to Earth’s Liz Chidley. “UFS tries to create the illusion
that it has enough plantations for all three ventures, but when
you look carefully, it hasn’t.”
Down
to Earth makes a series of recommendations, including an immediate
independent review of the sustainability of wood supplies for
all of UFS’ proposed developments. “UFS must, as a matter of priority,
work on mitigating the environmental and social impacts of its
Alle-Alle chip mill and no permit should be issued for the Satui
pulp project,” states the report.
But
the problem is not just a lack of plantations. Large-scale plantations
are in themselves environmentally and socially destructive. As
the report makes clear, pulp investments are at the expense of
local people’s livelihoods. Down to Earth recommends that instead
of “prioritising the interests of investors”, the Indonesian government
should “support community-based forest management initiatives
which are sustainable both from an environmental and a livelihoods
perspective.”
Down
to Earth’s report “No chip mill without wood” is available in
English or Bahasa Indonesia here:
http://dte.gn.apc.org/camp.htm, or as a hard copy from dtecampaign@gn.apc.org
(English) or dteindocamp@gn.apc.org
(Bahasa Indonesia).
By
Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org,
www.chrislang.blogspot.com
index
-
United States: Opposition to U.S. Conference
on Fast Growing Plantations
The
International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) conference
“Forest Plantations Meeting: Sustainable Forest Management with
Fast Growing Plantations” 10-13 October, 2006 encountered heavy
opposition by several environmental and ecological justice groups.
The
groups involved in the opposition acted in solidarity with those
in the Global South who are suffering due to large-scale monoculture
timber plantations –from Asia (including India, Indonesia, Thailand,
Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Vietnam) to Africa (including
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana), Latin America
(including Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru),
and Oceania (including Aotearoa/New Zeland, Australia).
The
southern U.S., where the IUFRO conference took place, is the home
of some of the largest timber plantations in the world, with one
out of every five tree covered acres in plantations, mainly loblolly
pine. The area has seen tremendous conversion from native
forest to industrial timber plantations and the rural poor have
been heavily impacted. South Carolina is also the international
headquarters of ArborGen, a joint venture of International Paper,
MeadWestvaco, and New Zealand’s Rubicon. ArborGen was one
of the conference sponsors and is the leader in the research and
development of genetically engineered (GE) trees. South
Carolina is home to the most GE tree test plots in the U.S.
Here
are some of the highlights of the opposition:
•
A month prior to the conference, Dogwood Alliance, Global Justice
Ecology Project, ForestEthics and the STOP GE Trees Campaign traveled
on a speaking tour around the southeastern U.S. to raise awareness
of the effects of large scale monoculture timber plantations in
that region and in the Global South including the threat of GE
trees being introduced into those plantations.
•
Immediately prior to the IUFRO conference we held our "A
Tree Farm Is Not A Forest" Public Forum. It was originally
booked at the Science Building of the College of Charleston, but
the Dean objected when she learned that industry would not be
presenting. She blocked us from using the building.
Undeterred, we held the opening night of the forum in the auditorium
of the College’s Business Center. The controversy generated
by the Dean helped increase our attendance.
•
On the opening day of the industry conference, Earth First! and
Rising Tide joined us to send an anti-plantations (and GE trees)
message to the industry conference. On a ferry ride to tour
Fort Sumter — the first official event of the industry conference—
protesters rode alongside the ferry in boats displaying several
banners including some in Spanish and Portuguese in solidarity
with our friends in Chile and Brazil. The action created quite
a stir on the ferry among both the conference attendees and the
200 other tourists. The ferry captain apparently approved
as he gave the banner crew a big thumbs up.
•
Next our report "The Ecological and Social Impacts of Fast
Growing Timber Plantations and Genetically Engineered Trees"
was presented inside the industry conference. Danna Smith of the
Dogwood Alliance spoke on the impact of large-scale loblolly pine
plantations on the ecosystems and rural communities of the U.S.
South and Neil Carman of the Sierra Club discussed the wholesale
ecological destruction that would occur if native forests were
contaminated by GE tree pollen and seeds. Global Justice
Ecology Project Co-Director Anne Petermann discussed the active
resistance to existing large-scale tree plantations by indigenous
communities like the Mapuche people in Chile and the Tupinikim
and Guarani peoples in Brazil, and by social movements like the
Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). Petermann also described
the potential social impacts on indigenous and rural communities
from genetically engineered eucalyptus and pine plantations in
those countries.
The
presentation included photos taken last November of villages built
by indigenous Tupinikim and Guarani peoples on land they had reclaimed
from vast eucalyptus plantations owned by Aracruz Cellulose, the
world’s largest exporter of bleached eucalyptus pulp. There
were also photos of the annihilation of these villages by governmental
forces using Aracruz Cellulose equipment. The presentation
also included images of Mapuche resistance to plantations in Chile
and of the repression they have faced at the hands of the government—which
has dredged up old laws from the Pinochet era to use against Mapuche
activists.
The
presentations generated much controversy at the industry conference.
A representative from Aracruz Cellulose took exception to the
portrayal of his company —especially in Petermann’s presentation,
that included the International Women’s Day action earlier this
year in Brazil at an Aracruz Cellulose nursery where 2,000 masked
women form Via Campesina destroyed approximately 8 million eucalyptus
seedlings. He responded by offering a tour of his company’s
facilities and plantations in Brazil to allow people to see for
themselves. We forwarded his offer to our allies in Brazil,
who may wish to take him up on it.
•
A local group formed out of the Charleston activities and its
first official action was the day they did guerilla theatre against
ArborGen at the DoubleTree breakfast for the industry conference
participants. This local group will be extremely important,
especially with ArborGen located around 20 miles from Charleston.
•
All of these efforts helped conceptualize a potential “South-to-South”
network to oppose to large scale monoculture timber plantations
and GE trees (basically a network between the U.S. South and the
Global South), which are linked due to the threats each faces
from timber plantations and GE trees. We believe it’s important
for the resistance in the Global South to know that there are
people in the southern U.S. also struggling against plantations
and showing solidarity with communities in the Global South.
This South to South initiative can help bridge some of the gaps
internationally and there are tremendous movements underway in
the Global South that are inspiring to people in the industrialized
north.
By
Orin Langelle and Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project,
e-mail: langelle@globaljusticeecology.org,
globalecology@gmavt.net
index
-
SFI: A certification scheme by the forestry
industry for the forestry industry
The
Sustainable Forestry Initiative - launched in 1995 by the American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), the most powerful
timber trade association in the world - covers an area over 40,485,830
ha in the United States and Canada. It is, in essence, a certification
scheme by the forestry industry for the forestry industry. AF&PA
member companies, including the largest loggers in the United
States and Canada and the largest wholesale distributors of global
wood products, account for 82% of the funds of SFI.
With
its "cut a tree, plant a tree" model of forestry, SFI
is making sure the logging industry sustains fiber flow but does
nothing to sustain forest ecosystems and even allows convertion
of forests to tree-farms.
Far
from its standard’s 4.1.4 Objective which mandates to “manage
the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute
to the conservation of biological diversity, by developing and
implementing stand-and landscape-level measures that promote habitat
diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animals” the
reality is quite different.
The
temperate forests of the Southern U.S. are some of the most biologically
rich forests in North America. These forests are under assault
by companies that subscribe to SFI. Over the last 10 years, SFI
member companies such as International Paper (IP) have expanded
paper production in the Southern U.S. causing an acceleration
of clearcutting and the conversion of diverse, native forests
to single-species tree plantations.
In
the Green Swamp - part of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest Ecoregion
-, IP has converted an area of diverse, natural forested wetlands
to a monoculture of pine plantation. The intensive management
of these industrial tree plantations (ditching, draining, clearcutting
and herbicide spraying) has significantly degraded the habitat
of many species of plants and animals indigenous to this area
such as the venus flytrap, pitcher plant, red cockaded woodpecker,
and wacamaw killfish.
From
1997 to 2000 alone, it was estimated that approximately half a
million pounds of herbicides - a variety of some 22 different
brands and mixes - have been spread over the Coastal Plains of
North Carolina including the Green Swamp. When inspectors with
North Carolina’s Division of Water Quality investigated I.P.’s
use of chemicals in the Green swamp they found that, "Based
on this field work it appears that these herbicides are being
widely used across this area without regard to the presence of
ditches or permanently flooded wetlands. Based on these field
observations, the DWQ believes that the spirit and the letter
of EPA labels are not being followed and that these herbicides
are being applied to surface water." (July 13, 2000)
The
US NGO Rainforest Action Network is leading a strong campaign
to say “NO” to SFI, which – they say - “in the US has destroyed
most of our old-growth forests; has pushed hundreds of fish, wildlife,
and plant species to the brink of extinction; has damaged water
quality; has turned biologically diverse native forests into monocultural
tree farms, and is now recklessly experimenting with genetically-modified
trees. Despite all this, the logging industry wants the public
to buy wood with an ecolabel that they have given themselves.
It is the fox guarding the henhouse. Loggers call it the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, or SFI. We call it the Same-old Forest Industry.”
Article
base don information from: “Footprints in the forest. Current
practice and future challenges in forest certification”, FERN,
2004;
http://www.fern.org/media/documents/document_1890_1900.pdf;
“International Paper In The Southern U.S.”,
http://www.dontbuysfi.com/reports/IPSFI.pdf; “Take Action”,
RAN, http://www.dontbuysfi.com/action/
index
FOCUS
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
-
Women taking the lead in reversing climate
change
A
thorough report by Leigh Brownhill and Terisa E. Turner (“Climate
Change and Nigerian Women’s Gift to Humanity”) traces Nigerian
resistance to massive oil exploitation --which has not rendered
any good for the country’s people (see WRM Bulletin Nº 56) --
and highlights women’s leading role in that struggle.
The
Nigerian organization Environmental Rights Action stated in 2005
that “More gas is flared in Nigeria than anywhere else in the
world. Estimates are notoriously unreliable, but roughly 2.5 billion
cubic feet of gas associated with crude oil is wasted in this
way everyday. This is equal to 40% of all Africa's natural gas
consumption in 2001, while the annual financial loss to Nigeria
is about US $2.5 billion. The flares have contributed more greenhouse
gases than all of sub-Saharan Africa combined. And the flares
contain a cocktail of toxins that affect the health and livelihood
of local communities, exposing Niger Delta residents to an increased
risk of premature deaths, child respiratory illnesses, asthma
and cancer.”
In
WRM Bulletin Nº 100 we have also depicted how vast tracts of mangrove
forests are slowly suffocated by the numerous oil spills, which
permeate the coastal waters and streams, and coat the exposed,
air breathing roots of the mangroves.
However,
Nigerian people have not been witnessing such a massive destruction
without resistance. Environmentalists in Nigeria, notably from
among the Ogoni, Ijaw and other ethnic groups in the oil-rich
Niger Delta, including the MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of
the Ogoni People), have persistently tried to shut down Shell’s
gas flaring. As a response, on November 10, 1995 Ken Saro-Wiwa
and eight other members of the MOSOP were hanged by Nigeria’s
military dictatorship (see WRM Bulletin Nº 27).
On
11 December, 1998 the newly formed Ijaw Youth Council, acting
as part of the multi-ethnic, pan-Delta Chikoko movement issued
the Kaiama Declaration, which stated that all land and natural
resources belonged to the communities and demanded “that all oil
companies stop all exploration and exploitation activities in
the Ijaw area. We are tired of gas flaring, oil spillages, blowouts
and being labelled saboteurs and terrorists.”
On
1 January 1999 activists in the Niger Delta launched ‘Operation
Climate Change,’ to shut down oil flow stations and gas flares
in the Delta. What was conceived as a ten-day program of non-violent
civil disobedience, with occupation of flow stations and attempts
made to shut down the flares, finally lasted for several weeks.
The Operation Climate Change seriously affected five oil companies
- Agip, Chevron, Mobil, Shell, Texaco -. The Shell-backed military
administration responded with a state of emergency. Two warships
and up to 15,000 troops were deployed. Many women were raped by
soldiers. Soldiers using a helicopter and boats owned by Chevron,
attacked environmentalists who were occupying a drilling rig,
killing over fifty people and destroying dozens of homes.
Dozens
of women’s groups from across the Delta, mobilized in a multi-ethnic
umbrella organization called Niger Delta Women for Justice, took
to the streets in Port Harcourt. Nigerian peasant women asked
for solidarity from women and other international activists in
a joint campaign to protect life by putting a stop to the depredations
of Big Oil. Environmentalists in Nigeria and the UK described
their Operation to shut down Shell gas flares as a “gift to humanity”
because it sought to cut carbon emissions that threaten humanity
as a whole.
The
aftermath for those engaged in the “gift to humanity” campaign
unfolded over the subsequent eight years along three axes: first,
the deepening of militancy within the Niger Delta around the demand
for democratic ‘resource control;’ second, the achievement of
significant success in expelling oil companies from the Niger
Delta; and third, the experience of violent counter-insurgency
at the behest of the Nigerian state and foreign oil companies.
This third dimension of the aftermath exposed the empirical power
relations between women who try to interdict perpetrators of ecocide
and those men who profit from expanded oil production with its
escalating deadly emissions.
In
2005 the Nigerian women’s groups, including Niger Delta Women
for Justice that had contributed to a moratorium on gas flaring
were labeled “terrorist” by the government which was being drawn
ever more deeply into the U.S. global ‘war on terror.’
The
Nigerian women’s “gift to humanity” provoked a leap in global
consciousness about the dire common fate of all humanity if specific
polluters amongst the world’s tiny clique of 400+ billionaires
are allowed to run rampant outside democratic control as well
as provoked and accelerated an international groundswell of coordinated
mobilization (see more info in the report).
In
January 2006 Nigerian courts ordered Shell to stop the flaring
of natural gas. Shell has appealed the ruling. The oil giant has
also been unable to return to Ogoniland since 1993. In a 23 September
2006 interview, Owens Wiwa stated that “It was Ogoni women who
were most instrumental in preventing Shell from operating in Ogoniland
over the past decade. This is a major success because not only
have we driven Shell out non-violently, but we have set
a precedent for all Nigeria and indeed
the whole world: without local people’s agreement, no oil company
can go in. A tremendous price has been paid in
loss of life. But government’s revocation of Shell’s operating
licence is a tremendous victory and it is due largely to the commitment
of ordinary village women, mostly organized
through the Federation of Ogoni Women’s
Associations.”
The
shut-down of all Shell operations in Ogoniland means less gas
flaring, less carbon emissions and less global warming. The shut-down
is not limited to Ogoniland. Across the Delta, some 600,000 barrels
a day, or about a quarter of Nigeria’s total production, was shut-in
throughout 2006. This entails a massive cut in greenhouse gas
emissions.
Nigerian
women led a remarkable global initiative to cut greenhouse gas
emissions. The coordinated, international action and its aftermath
suggest tactics that, if adopted more generally today, promise
to deliver success in the complex struggle to reverse climate
change.
Extracted
and adapted from: “Climate Change and Nigerian Women’s Gift to
Humanity”, by Leigh Brownhill and Terisa E. Turner, Centre for
Civil Society,
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?2,40,5,1153
index
-
Biofuels do not solve but only worsen
climate change
The
volume of fossil fuels burnt by the “oil” civilization in one
year contains an amount of organic matter equivalent to four centuries
of plants and animals.
“We
must break our addiction to
